JOKE of the YEAR HEADLAND GUILTY BUT NO PENALTY

[Bobby McKenzie 2,408]

The AFL tribunal have created a very dangerous precedent. After you hit someone you say that they insulted a very close relative and you're in the clear. Headland was found guilty of one striking charge but has not been penalised because of "Exceptional circumstances". Given that Eagle Sellwood was CLEARED of his alleged family insult what could be the so called "Exceptional circumstances?" I'm not a lawyer but maybe someone can enlighten me on this amazing verdict. The tribunal have gone mad.

[Choko 493]

The AFL tribunal have created a very dangerous precedent. After you hit someone you say that they insulted a very close relative and you're in the clear. Headland was found guilty of one striking charge but has not been penalised because of "Exceptional circumstances". Given that Eagle Sellwood was CLEARED of his alleged family insult what could be the so called "Exceptional circumstances?" I'm not a lawyer but maybe someone can enlighten me on this amazing verdict. The tribunal have gone mad.

Yeh. I am a lawyer, and although the tribunal is not bound by precedent, why wouldn't every player now be claiming provocation. If they believed Selwood's story, then how are the circumstances exceptional? Ridiculous.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,408]

Yeh. I am a lawyer, and although the tribunal is not bound by precedent, why wouldn't every player now be claiming provocation. If they believed Selwood's story, then how are the circumstances exceptional? Ridiculous.

Thanks Choko for your thoughts. Are you really a lawyer? I also now realise that I will get into trouble for creating this thread ( Jaded will be onto me.) I should have read the Selwood thread before posting as all the arguments appear there. Sorry Jaded.

[beelzebub 23,392]

I thought there were automatic penalties ?? The AFL are now certifiably funny..... bunch of clowns !!

[_becks_ 35]

deplorable action by the AFL. "Nobody's Guilty", yet there was a punch on and disgusting words spoken (allegedly). Give me a break.

[dees_rule_4eva 22]

deplorable action by the AFL. "Nobody's Guilty", yet there was a punch on and disgusting words spoken (allegedly). Give me a break.

JUst confirms what we have all been thinking lately, that the AFL is going down hill. They don't stand strong when they need to. Based on this verdict, players are going to punch each other every week, and then excuse themeselves by claiming they were abused in a way that is not part of the game.

Shame Andrew Demetriou, shame, shame, shame.

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,485]

The footy gods are not smiling on us, from an MFC point of view.

$50 Headland plays the game of his life, kicks 5 goals and is the inspiration behind Freo's win. Carr also plays a blinder.

I'm almost over 2007 :angry:

[Madness 44]

Poor Freo have to actually drop this hack now...

[sylvinator 96]

so now u can punch a guy in the face, and get off, because you were provoked.

What selwood said was disgusting and provocative, but that doesnt condone headlands actions.

the most rediculous judgement i have heard of ever

[Gouga 570]

I'm a law student so take this with a grain of salt.

As far a I know provocation is only a partial defence. For example for murder a defendant can argue provocation, and if successful, will be convicted of manslaughter instead which is a lessor penalty.

For comparison, self-defence is an actual defence so based on a successful arguement a defendant can be acquitted.

It all rests on intention.

Anyway. applying this reasoning, maybe the tribunal in deciding that Headland was provoked should have excepted that as a partial defence and down graded his charge from intentional to reckless meaning a lessor sentence.

Any thoughts? Any lawyers that can correct me?

[deanox 10,069]

gouga i agree entirely...words are words. if a supporter on the other side of the fence had of said something and he had of hit them provocation would not be an excuse big enough to get him off. what was said did not force him to hit him, more than once. a downgraded penalty would have been acceptable but to let him off completely is a joke.

[grazman 7,539]

I'm a law student so take this with a grain of salt.

As far a I know provocation is only a partial defence. For example for murder a defendant can argue provocation, and if successful, will be convicted of manslaughter instead which is a lessor penalty.

For comparison, self-defence is an actual defence so based on a successful arguement a defendant can be acquitted.

It all rests on intention.

Anyway. applying this reasoning, maybe the tribunal in deciding that Headland was provoked should have excepted that as a partial defence and down graded his charge from intentional to reckless meaning a lessor sentence.

Any thoughts? Any lawyers that can correct me?

That's my understanding to. Provocation is only a defence for murder, can't be used for any other type of assault.

The AFL judiciary appears to base a lot of its decisions based on previous cases of similar fact (very much like common law) I guess it isn't necessarily bound by precedent, but if it should be obligated to at least explain its decisions based on the facts and how they have differed in previous charges. Most people are absolutely correct in that the lid is well and truly off the box now - but beware anyone that thinks there maybe any sort of consistency in the tribunal and its decision making in the future.

Hodge doesn't get penalised on a tripping charge even though Lappin has missed two weeks, Headland gets off after clearly belting a bloke. I bet you a demon kicks the ball into a goal umpire on the weekend and gets 12 weeks.

[timetobrock 0]

Lawyer, law student or not, the Headland decision is a disgrace. It is not a dangerous precedent, simply because the AFL tribunal is not bound (nor even guided) by precedent like a court of law, and in the past it has never considered precedent when handing down its decisions.

The public do not ask much from the AFL with regards to umpires and the tribunal. But the most common request is consistency. Umpiring consistency is non existent. The rule interpretations change from week to week. Often the decisions made on a Sunday are completely different to those made on the preceeding Friday. See the perpetually confusing holding the ball rule.

But tribunal results are much more important than free kicks given during games. If the AFL stated that they would follow similar previous cases at the tribunal (perhaps cases from the current year and last year), and maintained this consistency, then clubs and the public could not reasonably feel wronged. In most tribunal cases there is an almost identical incident that occured in the past season. The tribunal could simply hand out the same decision, instead of implementing its moronic, nonsensical points process.

But the Headland case could not possibly be followed in the future. Every player charged can simply say that he was deeply offended by a jibe from an opponent. For example a player was called a f....n poof whilst shooting for goal. He missed then punched his opponent in the head. He claimed that this jibe was particularly offensive (as well as socially insensitive). Whether or not he was offended, and whether or not the jibe was actually said is not relevant. It wasn't in Headland's case.

[Gouga 570]

But the Headland case could not possibly be followed in the future. Every player charged can simply say that he was deeply offended by a jibe from an opponent. For example a player was called a f....n poof whilst shooting for goal. He missed then punched his opponent in the head. He claimed that this jibe was particularly offensive (as well as socially insensitive). Whether or not he was offended, and whether or not the jibe was actually said is not relevant. It wasn't in Headland's case.

Don't forget another important part of the law is to distinguish between previous decisions.

For example the precedent set by the Headland case does not mean that your example will be treated the same way.

For example:

The slur in the Headland case was of a sexual nature against a family member who has only 6 years old.

In your example:

The slur was of a sexual nature against the person who is of a reasonable age.

The tribunal is not bound to follow the Headland decision because the facts can be distinguished.

Having said that, I don't think they have got it right on this occasion.

[deanox 10,069]

they are not bound fair nough...

but i think a slur on a fmaily emmber is a slur on a family member. saying something about sex with a 6 year old is no more provoking or wrong or illegal than a comment on sex with an older married person (his mum). the same offence could be taken from each comment and if you want to say that only one is good enough as a justifiable defence for violence you are making a judgment that the respect and love someone has for their child is greater than the respect and love they ahve for their parents.

if you are talking about a criminal issue, if he had of said i robbed your mums house, would that be an acceptable defense because it is a criminal act? what if he said 'my uncle slept with your mum when she was 6'. would that be as insulting?

[diesel 420]

This decision suspends reality. I think regardless of the facts (whatever version you believe) the AFL's intention through the tribunal has been to deal with this matter quickly and without upsetting the protraganists or clubs so there were no appeals or further bad publicity.

[deanox 10,069]

they have been soft this year. to some extent i dont mind. i would rather see everyone get off and just keep the game going. you dont want stars out for weeks...and you want to see body contact and big hits. who doesnt? but some times players need a slap on the wrist...

[QueenC 74]

but i think a slur on a fmaily emmber is a slur on a family member. saying something about sex with a 6 year old is no more provoking or wrong or illegal than a comment on sex with an older married person (his mum).

Apropos of this, apparently it was purely the fact that the apparent slight was against his daughter that got Headland so riled up.

He said that if the same sledge had been used against other members of his family or his partner then that was fine.